The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-05-24
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court
Hon. Allen collars, Chief-j ustice
The following opinions were rendered May %:
Supreme Court.


GRAVEL RoADs-sTATUTE-RE
1885, Andrew L. Robinson Zenas l..
Rippey. Clinton c. c. Affirmed. Elliott J.
The gravel-road law OF March g. 1877. was notr re-
pealed by the act of April 8, 1880. Eacn act
taken in itself constitutes a complete scheme or
system for the construction of gravel roads. and
for the method of procedure in making and col
lecting assessments. The fact that the statutes
relate to the same subject and seek the same
end does not necessarily require it to be held
that the later supersedes the earlier III where
there is objection to the bond given in gravel
road proceedings before the commissioners there
is no available question here.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-AFFIDAvIT.
1920 State Edward Bruner. Pike G. c.
Reversed Niblack, J.-In charging the mutlla-
ting of an animal the method of torture or mutila-
ton, as well as the effect produced ought to be
stated charge that the torture, torment and
mutilation inflicted 'by then and there
turpentining and burning the goose In a cruel
and wanton manner is substantially sufficient
SECRETARY STATE-BoARD OF HEALTH
CLERK.
1850 Bruce Carr Auditor, etc, VS. State ex
rel. Florence NJ. Stewart. Marion $. Z. At
frmed. Howk. J.-(l.) The Secretary of State
is not authorized empowered by any law OF
the State to discharge or remove clerk IN the
Bureau of Vital and Sanitary Statistics who had
been appointed by his predecessor upon requl-
sltion from the secretary of the Board of Health,
approved by the president (2.) The Secretary
of State is not authorized, except upon requisl-
ton of the secretary of the State Board of
Health, approved by the president thereof, to
appoint any person to perform clerical duties in
such bureau and an old requisition. issued to
his predecessor, afforded no authority to make
such appointments.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..
1877. The c., Fl. 6 T. r. r. Co. VS.. Villa m
A Jones Rush c. c. Affirmed. Mitchell j.
A railroad company is not required to fence
its track nor to maintain cattle pits at pon Is
where to do SO would interfere with the safety
of its employees in operating trains upon the road
or where fences or cattle-pits would interfere
with it's rights in the transaction of business
with the public, nor where the rights of the pub
lie in travelling doing business with the COM
pany would be interfered with. IL it is imprac-
tcable to fence that should he made to appear.
While courts may say. as matter of law. that
railroad companies cannot be required to erect
fences construct cattle-pit5 in public high
WAYS, courts cannot judically know that rail-
road bridge. abuttng upon a highway, may not
be reasonably so constructed to deter animals
from entering thereon and yet be secure for the
passage of engines and trains. Where rail-
road company maintains bridge in such con-
dition that animals may enter upon 1t from
public highway. thus putting In jeopardy the
safety of trains, we'll the lives of the ami
mails, the railroad is not securely fenced.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES WOMAN.
1870. Charles Post administrator. vs.. Emma
J. Losev ct al. Marion S. c. Affirmed. collars,
c. J.-When in 1875 married woman joined
her husband in the execution of note and
mortgage on her separate property to secure his
debt the payee will be held to have acquired
knowledge of the facts which prudent inquiry
would have disclosed. and that she was surety.
Where the husband In such case was discharged
in bankruptcy he is neither liable upon the note
or otherwise 20 the payee. nor is he liable to the
wife who was surety. since she failed to cause
the debt she incurred as surety to be proved
against his bankrupt estate Where in such
case the husband and the payee agreed for
extension of time of payment and for different
rate of interest, and it Endorsed on the
back of the note. the contract between the hus-
band and the payee, as evidenced by the face of
the note and the Endorsement on the back of it.
is not the contract between them as it existed
at the time the wife executed the mortgage
security. The contract being changed without
her consent and knowledge, her property was
released. By his discharge the husband did not
become stranger to the note. His moral OBJ
legation TO pay sufficient consideration for
his subsequent promise.